Comment

Comments on stories are a way for Life Matters listeners to contribute to and discuss the program.

Comments are moderated. Before you contribute, we recommend you read our house rules,.

If your comment contains personal information about yourself or others, we request that you provide your first name only or a pen-name. If your full name appears we may be unable to publish your comment.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

10 Dec 2016 1:32:16pm

Text

PreviousMessage

There is a real problem with the way labelling has been turned from a simple "these are the ingredients in this package" into "consumers must be informed because they are too busy to read confusing labels" debate. On the one hand, nutritional information is invariably overly complex and often uneceassry, but printed in such small writing that the average shopper simply will not put in the effort to read the label on every single item they desire to purchase on the shelf, so they will not bother to. They might, on the other hand take an active interest in reading the label at home, and so the information is available, and that justifies inclusion on the label. However, many people (Note I do not say the majority, though it may well be given the concern about education standards) will simply not know much about the complex science of nutrition - despite arguments to the contrary, I'm sure most RN listeners are probably quite competent, but this is not most people, if I can be arrogant enough to suggest - which limits their ability to know what sodium really means, or that potassium or artificial colours 261 or whatever actually means in terms of dietary intake. Justifying the inclusion of that data as well (% of dietary intake) but then there are people with special requirements for whom that data is potentially misleading. So the proposal might be to go to a simpler "Traffic light system" and though this may be seen to some degree (perhaps particularly to RN listeners) as an oversimplification, it has some merit for the idealised consumer. The real problem then becomes one of "The consumer is entitled to make their own - and preferably well-informed - decision about whether and how much of the product they decide to consume, as part of a well balanced diet" Which of course is legalese, and designed to protect the corporations from the kind of litigation that is all too common in the US, and as we seem to be following them in everything, presumably will become common here too. The truth is of course that people should try to make informed decisions, and are entitled to the kind of education that allows them to make good decisions. Where a potential trap with "traffic lights" systems is that usually people would tend to go through the red light, and almost always run an orange light. In other words, if someone sees something ticked as green, they might exceed their intake of it because it's ok, and many foods willbe orange light, so they'll be ok, and what foods will get red light? And people will still eat them!

Please note that there is limit per post of 3,000 characters, including spaces, carriage returns and punctuation (about 500 words). Your email address will not be published.